Local Area Unemployment Statistics

Regional and State Unemployment (Annual) News Release

For release 10:00 a.m. (EST) Wednesday, February 29, 2012 USDL-12-0371
Technical information: (202) 691-6392 * lausinfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/lau
Media contact: (202) 691-5902 * PressOffice@bls.gov
(NOTE: This release was reissued on Wednesday, April 4, 2012, to incorporate minor
corrections to employment and labor force estimates for Montana due to an input error.
Montana’s 2010 employment-population ratio changed from 59.7 to 59.9 percent, while
its 2011 ratio changed from 59.8 to 59.7 percent, impacting the state counts for
over-the-year employment-population ratio changes. The introductory paragraph of the
release, as well as tables 1 and 2, have been modified accordingly.)
REGIONAL AND STATE UNEMPLOYMENT -- 2011 ANNUAL AVERAGES
In 2011, annual average unemployment rates declined in 48 states and rose in 2 states
and the District of Columbia, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.
Employment-population ratios decreased in 25 states and the District of Columbia,
increased in 18 states, and were unchanged in 7 states. The U.S. jobless rate in
2011 was 8.9 percent, down 0.7 percentage point from the prior year. The national
employment-population ratio continued to trend down to 58.4 percent in 2011.
Regional Unemployment
All four regions posted statistically significant unemployment rate decreases in
2011. The Midwest experienced the greatest decline (-1.1 percentage points),
followed by the West (-0.6 point) and the Northeast and South (-0.5 point each). The
West, at 10.4 percent, registered the only jobless rate significantly higher than
that of the U.S. in 2011. The Northeast and Midwest, at 8.2 and 8.4 percent,
respectively, both had rates significantly below the national figure. (See table 1.)
Eight of the 9 geographic divisions reported statistically significant over-the-year
unemployment rate changes in 2011, all of which were decreases. The largest of these
occurred in the East North Central (-1.3 percentage points) and New England
(-0.8 point). For the fourth year in a row, the Pacific recorded the highest
unemployment rate, 11.0 percent in 2011. The next highest rates were in the East South
Central and South Atlantic, 9.4 and 9.3 percent, respectively. The rates of these
three divisions were significantly above the U.S. average. The West North Central
division again posted the lowest jobless rate, 6.6 percent. Three other
divisions--the Middle Atlantic, New England, and West South Central--also had rates
significantly below the national figure.
State Unemployment
In 2011, 30 states posted statistically significant unemployment rate decreases, the
largest of which was in Michigan (-2.4 percentage points). Four additional states
experienced decreases greater than 1.0 percentage point: Ohio (-1.4 points), Utah
(-1.3 points), Oregon (-1.2 points), and Indiana (-1.1 points). The remaining 20
states and the District of Columbia reported annual average unemployment rates for
2011 that were not appreciably different from those of the previous year, even
though some had changes that were at least as large numerically as the significant
changes. (See table A.)
Eight states and the District of Columbia reported unemployment rates of 10.0
percent or more in 2011. Nevada again posted the highest unemployment rate, 13.5
percent, followed by California, 11.7 percent. North Dakota registered the lowest
jobless rate among states for the third year in a row, 3.5 percent, followed by
Nebraska, 4.4 percent. Overall, 28 states had unemployment rates that were
significantly lower than the U.S. rate of 8.9 percent, while 10 states and the
District of Columbia recorded rates significantly above it. (See table B.)
Regional Employment-Population Ratios
In 2011, the West was the only region to register a statistically significant change
(-0.4 percentage point) in its employment-population ratio--the proportion of the
civilian noninstitutional population 16 years of age and over with a job. The
Midwest continued to report the highest ratio, 60.4 percent, while the South, at
57.5 percent, maintained the lowest. The South and West posted employment-population
ratios that were significantly lower than the national figure of 58.4 percent, while
the Midwest recorded a significantly higher ratio. (See table 2.)
The Mountain was the only division to register a statistically significant change in
its employment-population ratio in 2011 (-0.7 percentage point). The East South
Central again recorded the lowest proportion of employed persons, 55.2 percent. The
next lowest ratios were posted in the Pacific, 56.9 percent; South Atlantic, 57.3
percent; and Middle Atlantic, 57.7 percent. Ratios in all four of these divisions
were significantly below the national average. The division with the highest
employment-population ratio was the West North Central, at 64.7 percent, followed by
New England, at 61.6 percent. These two divisions, along with the Mountain and West
South Central, at 59.1 percent each, registered employment-population ratios
measurably above that of the U.S. The ratio registered in the Pacific in 2011 was a
series low. (All region, division, and state series begin in 1976.)
State Employment-Population Ratios
In 2011, Utah registered the largest employment-population ratio decline among
states (-1.0 percentage point). The next largest statistically significant declines
occurred in Arizona (-0.9 percentage point), Nevada and New Mexico (-0.8 point each),
and New York (-0.5 point). The District of Columbia also reported a measurable
decline (-1.3 percentage points). Virginia posted the only significant ratio increase
among states (+0.2 percentage point). The remaining 44 states had employment-population
ratios that were not significantly different from those of a year earlier.
West Virginia again reported the lowest employment-population ratio among the states,
49.5 percent. West Virginia has had the lowest employment-population ratio each year since
the series began in 1976. Four states in the West North Central division again posted the
highest ratios: North Dakota, 69.3 percent; Nebraska, 68.5 percent; South Dakota, 68.1
percent; and Minnesota, 67.1 percent. Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia recorded
employment-population ratios that were significantly above the U.S. ratio of 58.4 percent,
and 16 states had ratios that were appreciably below it. The remaining 11 states had
ratios that were not measurably different from that of the nation. Five states registered
the lowest employment-population ratios in their series in 2011: California, 56.0 percent;
Hawaii, 58.6 percent; Nevada, 57.2 percent; New Mexico, 54.3 percent; and North Carolina,
56.2percent. (See table C.)
_____________
The Regional and State Employment and Unemployment news release for January 2012 is
scheduled to be released on Tuesday, March 13, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. (EDT). The
Metropolitan Area Employment and Unemployment news release for January 2012 is
scheduled to be released on Friday, March 23, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. (EDT).
Table A. States with statistically significant unemployment rate changes,
2010-11 annual averages
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Rate |
|-------------------------| Over-the-year
State | | | rate change
| 2010 | 2011 |
--------------------------------|------------|------------|---------------
Arizona ........................| 10.5 | 9.5 | -1.0
California .....................| 12.4 | 11.7 | -.7
Colorado .......................| 8.9 | 8.3 | -.6
Delaware .......................| 8.0 | 7.3 | -.7
Florida ........................| 11.3 | 10.5 | -.8
Illinois .......................| 10.5 | 9.8 | -.7
Indiana ........................| 10.1 | 9.0 | -1.1
Kansas .........................| 7.2 | 6.7 | -.5
Kentucky .......................| 10.2 | 9.5 | -.7
Maine ..........................| 8.2 | 7.5 | -.7
| | |
Maryland .......................| 7.8 | 7.0 | -.8
Massachusetts ..................| 8.3 | 7.4 | -.9
Michigan .......................| 12.7 | 10.3 | -2.4
Minnesota ......................| 7.3 | 6.4 | -.9
Missouri .......................| 9.4 | 8.6 | -.8
New Hampshire ..................| 6.1 | 5.4 | -.7
New York .......................| 8.6 | 8.2 | -.4
North Dakota ...................| 3.8 | 3.5 | -.3
Ohio ...........................| 10.0 | 8.6 | -1.4
Oklahoma .......................| 6.9 | 6.2 | -.7
| | |
Oregon .........................| 10.7 | 9.5 | -1.2
Pennsylvania ...................| 8.5 | 7.9 | -.6
South Carolina .................| 11.2 | 10.3 | -.9
South Dakota ...................| 5.0 | 4.7 | -.3
Utah ...........................| 8.0 | 6.7 | -1.3
Vermont ........................| 6.4 | 5.6 | -.8
Virginia .......................| 6.9 | 6.2 | -.7
Washington .....................| 9.9 | 9.2 | -.7
Wisconsin ......................| 8.5 | 7.5 | -1.0
Wyoming ........................| 7.0 | 6.0 | -1.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table B. States with unemployment rates significantly different
from that of the U.S., 2011 annual averages
--------------------------------------------------------------
State | Rate
--------------------------------------------------------------
United States .......................| 8.9
|
Alaska ..............................| 7.6
Arkansas ............................| 8.0
California ..........................| 11.7
Colorado ............................| 8.3
Delaware ............................| 7.3
District of Columbia ................| 10.2
Florida .............................| 10.5
Georgia .............................| 9.8
Hawaii ..............................| 6.7
Illinois ............................| 9.8
|
Iowa ................................| 5.9
Kansas ..............................| 6.7
Louisiana ...........................| 7.3
Maine ...............................| 7.5
Maryland ............................| 7.0
Massachusetts .......................| 7.4
Michigan ............................| 10.3
Minnesota ...........................| 6.4
Mississippi .........................| 10.7
Montana .............................| 6.8
|
Nebraska ............................| 4.4
Nevada ..............................| 13.5
New Hampshire .......................| 5.4
New Mexico ..........................| 7.4
New York ............................| 8.2
North Carolina ......................| 10.5
North Dakota ........................| 3.5
Oklahoma ............................| 6.2
Pennsylvania ........................| 7.9
Rhode Island ........................| 11.3
|
South Carolina ......................| 10.3
South Dakota ........................| 4.7
Texas ...............................| 7.9
Utah ................................| 6.7
Vermont .............................| 5.6
Virginia ............................| 6.2
West Virginia .......................| 8.0
Wisconsin ...........................| 7.5
Wyoming .............................| 6.0
--------------------------------------------------------------
Table C. States with employment-population ratios significantly
different from that of the U.S., 2011 annual averages
----------------------------------------------------------------
State | Ratio
----------------------------------------------------------------
United States .......................| 58.4
|
Alabama .............................| 53.4
Alaska ..............................| 64.2
Arizona .............................| 55.8
Arkansas ............................| 55.9
California ..........................| 56.0
Colorado ............................| 63.7
Connecticut .........................| 62.0
Delaware ............................| 57.3
District of Columbia ................| 60.1
Florida .............................| 54.4
|
Illinois ............................| 59.5
Iowa ................................| 65.9
Kansas ..............................| 64.8
Kentucky ............................| 55.5
Louisiana ...........................| 54.9
Maine ...............................| 60.3
Maryland ............................| 62.8
Massachusetts .......................| 60.7
Michigan ............................| 53.9
Minnesota ...........................| 67.1
|
Mississippi .........................| 53.5
Missouri ............................| 59.9
Nebraska ............................| 68.5
Nevada ..............................| 57.2
New Hampshire .......................| 65.9
New Jersey ..........................| 59.8
New Mexico ..........................| 54.3
New York ............................| 56.5
North Carolina ......................| 56.2
North Dakota ........................| 69.3
|
South Carolina ......................| 53.5
South Dakota ........................| 68.1
Texas ...............................| 60.4
Utah ................................| 62.5
Vermont .............................| 66.4
Virginia ............................| 64.7
Washington ..........................| 59.6
West Virginia .......................| 49.5
Wisconsin ...........................| 63.5
Wyoming .............................| 65.4
----------------------------------------------------------------

Technical Note
This release presents labor force and unemployment data for census regions
and divisions and states from the Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS)
program. The LAUS program is a federal-state cooperative endeavor.
Concepts
Definitions. The labor force and unemployment data are based on the same
concepts and definitions as those used for the official national estimates
obtained from the Current Population Survey (CPS), a sample survey of house-
holds that is conducted for the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) by the U.S.
Census Bureau. The LAUS program measures employment and unemployment on a
place-of-residence basis. The universe for each is the civilian noninstitu-
tional population 16 years of age and over. Employed persons are those who did
any work at all for pay or profit in the reference week (the week including
the 12th of the month) or worked 15 hours or more without pay in a family
business or farm, plus those not working who had a job from which they were
temporarily absent, whether or not paid, for such reasons as labor-manage-
ment dispute, illness, or vacation. Unemployed persons are those who were
not employed during the reference week (based on the definition above), had
actively looked for a job sometime in the 4-week period ending with the
reference week, and were currently available for work; persons on layoff
expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed.
The labor force is the sum of employed and unemployed persons. The unemploy-
ment rate is the number of unemployed expressed as a percent of the labor
force. The employment-population ratio is the proportion of the civilian
noninstitutional population 16 years of age and over that is employed.
Method of estimation. Estimates for 48 of the 50 states, the District of
Columbia, the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale metropolitan division, New York
City, and the balances of California and New York State are produced using
estimating equations based on regression techniques. This method, which under-
went substantial enhancement at the beginning of 2005, utilizes data from
several sources, including the CPS, the Current Employment Statistics (CES)
survey of nonfarm payroll employment, and state unemployment insurance (UI)
programs. Estimates for the State of California are derived by summing the
estimates for the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale metropolitan division and
the balance of California. Similarly, estimates for New York State are derived
by summing the estimates for New York City and the balance of New York State.
Estimates for all nine census divisions are based on a similar regression
approach that does not incorporate CES or UI data. Estimates for census
regions are obtained by summing the model-based estimates for the component
divisions and then calculating the unemployment rate. Each month, census
division estimates are controlled to national totals; state estimates are
then controlled to their respective division totals. Estimates for Puerto Rico
are derived from a monthly household survey similar to the CPS. A detailed
description of the estimation procedures is available from BLS upon request.
Annual revisions. Labor force and unemployment data for prior years reflect
adjustments made at the end of each year. The adjusted estimates incorporate
updated population data from the U.S. Census Bureau, any revisions in the
other data sources, and model reestimation. The population data (except for
Puerto Rico) reflect, for the first time, the results of the 2010 Census. In
most years, historical data for the most recent 5 years (both seasonally
adjusted and not seasonally adjusted) are revised near the beginning of each
calendar year, prior to the release of January estimates. Though the labor
force estimates are changed for 5 years, the population estimates are adjusted
back to the new decennial estimates base of April 2010.
Reliability of the estimates
The estimates presented in this release are based on sample surveys,
administrative data, and modeling and, thus, are subject to sampling and
other types of errors. Sampling error is a measure of sampling variability--
that is, variation that occurs by chance because a sample rather than the
entire population is surveyed. Survey data also are subject to nonsampling
errors, such as those which can be introduced into the data collection and
processing operations. Estimates not directly derived from sample surveys
are subject to additional errors resulting from the specific estimation
processes used. In table 1, level estimates for states may not sum to level
estimates for regions and divisions because of rounding. Unemployment rates
and employment-population ratios are computed from unrounded levels and thus
may differ slightly from rates and ratios computed using the rounded level
estimates displayed in table 1.
Use of error measures. In 2005, the LAUS program introduced several
improvements to its methodology. Among these was the development of model-
based error measures for the monthly estimates and the estimates of over-
the-month changes. Annual average model-based error measures became avail-
able for the first time after 2006. The introductory section of this release
preserves the long-time practice of highlighting the direction of the move-
ments in regional and state unemployment rates and employment-population
ratios regardless of their statistical significance. The remainder of the
analysis in the release--other than historical highs and lows--takes statis-
tical significance into consideration. Model-based error measures are avail-
able online at www.bls.gov/lau/lastderr.htm. BLS uses 90-percent confidence
levels in determining whether changes in LAUS unemployment rates or employment-
population ratios are statistically significant. The average magnitude of the
over-the-year change in an annual state unemployment rate that is required in
order to be statistically significant at the 90-percent confidence level is
about 0.5 percentage point. The average magnitude of the over-the-year change
in an annual state employment-population ratio that is required in order to
be statistically significant at the 90-percent confidence level is about 0.6
percentage point. More details can be found on the Web site. Measures of non-
sampling error are not available, but additional information on the subject is
provided in Employment & Earnings Online, available on the BLS Web site at
www.bls.gov/opub/ee/home.htm.
Additional information
More complete information on the technical procedures used to develop these
estimates and additional data appear in Employment & Earnings Online.
Information in this release will be made available to sensory impaired
individuals upon request. Voice phone: (202) 691-5200; Federal Relay Service:
(800) 877-8339.